Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm familiarizing myself with manifolds. I tried to show $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ is a manifold with a boundary. Can you please tell me if my proof is correct:

The definition for manifold with boundary:

A manifold with boundary $M$ is a second countable Hausdorff space so that for a $p \in M$ there is an open set $U \subseteq M$ so that there is a homeomorphism $\varphi$ to either (a) an open set $V$ in $H^n \setminus \partial H^n$ or to (b) an open set $V$ in $H^n$ and $\varphi (p) \in \partial H^n$ where $H^n$ is the closed upper half plane. It means $H^n = \{x \in \mathbb R^n : x_k \ge 0 ; 1 \le k \le n \}$.

One has to show $M = [0,1] \times [0,1]$ is second countable, Hausdorff and locally homeomorphic to $H^n$.

$M$ is second countable because it has subspace topology of $H^2$.

It is Hausdorff because it has subspace topology of $H^2$.

Locally Euclidean: For point $p \in M$ take set $U$ open in $H^2$ with $p \in U$. Inclusion map $i: U \to U \subseteq H^2$ is local homeomorphism with the property maps to open set and if $p \in \partial M$ then $i(p) \in \partial H^2$.

I am very grateful for your help.

share|improve this question
2  
Well, it is not a 2-manifold, but a 2-manifold with boundary. –  Berci Jan 23 '13 at 14:01
    
@Berci Okay. Does it imply my proof is wrong? –  goobie Jan 23 '13 at 14:05
2  
What is your definition of manifold with boundary ? The usual definition is this one‌​. If $x$ is on the boundary, then you are showing that the boundary (NOT the square) is a manifold locally at $x$. –  user10676 Jan 23 '13 at 14:38
    
1  
No. You have to show that there is a neighborhood homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n-r} \times \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^{r}$ for some $r$ (depending on $x$). –  user10676 Jan 23 '13 at 15:09

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted
+100

The portion where you show that $M$ is locally Euclidean is not correct and here's why:

You have to show that for every point $p \in M$ there exists a neighborhood $U \subseteq M$ of $p$ and a homeomorphism from $U$ to an open subset of either $\mathbb R^2$ or $\mathbb H^2$.

Now here's what you wrote:

  • For point $p \in M$ take set $U$ open in $\mathbb H^2$ with $p \in U$

So your neighborhood $U$ is in $\mathbb H^2$ and not in $M$! While it is indeed true that $M \subseteq \mathbb H^2$ we cannot simply say that a neighborhood in $\mathbb H^2$ is a neighborhood in $M$. If $p$ is the point $p = (1, 1)$ then any neighborhood of $p$ in $\mathbb H^2$ will contain points that are not in $M$.

Edit:

To fix the proof remember that if $U \subseteq M$ contains part of the boundry of $M$ then the chart for $U$ will have to map that boundry to the boundry of $\mathbb H^2$. So for example if $p = (1, 1)$ then let $U = (.4, 1] \times (.4, 1]$ and for a chart try $\phi\colon U \to \mathbb H^2$ defined by $\phi(x, y) = (1 - x, 1 - y)$. I leave it to you to check that the image of $\phi$ is open in $\mathbb H^2$ and that $\phi$ is a homeomorphism onto this image. You'll also need to come up with charts covering the rest of $M$. I suggest you take

  • $U_2 = [0, .6) \times (.4, 1]$
  • $U_3 = (.4, 1] \times [0, .6)$
  • $U_4 = [0, .6) \times [0, .6)$

as the neighborhoods for those charts.

Edit #2:

Whoops! My edit above has a mistake as pointed out by goobie. Also pointed out by goobie is the fix: Instead of the chart $\phi$ that I suggested take $\phi\colon U \to \mathbb H^2$ defined by $\phi(z) = z^2$ (here I'm using complex numbers to denote points in the plane). Then you'll just need to do some translation and rotation to handle the other corners.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much for answer! I understand mistake. To correct it one can take intersection of $U \cap M$ where $U$ is open in $H^2$? –  goobie Jan 29 '13 at 7:35
    
No, if $U$ is a neighborhood of $p$ in $\mathbb H^2$ then the intersection $U \cap M$ will indeed be a neighborhood of $p$ in $M$, but it will not be an open subset in $\mathbb H^2$ so the inclusion of $U \cap M$ into $\mathbb H^2$ does not give a homeomorphism of $U \cap M$ onto an open subset of $\mathbb H^2$. –  Jim Jan 29 '13 at 7:55
    
Many thank you, I can do it now!! But: if you take $U_1 = (0.4, 1] \times (0.4, 1]$ and denote its corners by $ABCD$ counterclockwise and then apply $\pi (x,y) = (1-x, 1-y)$ the result is a set with corner $C$ at $(0,0)$ and corners $CDAB$ counterclockwise. It has closed border $BC$ and is not open in $\mathbb H^2$. –  goobie Jan 29 '13 at 9:12
    
I tried with open balls: $B( (1,1) , 0.6) \cap M$. Then denote a point in $B( (1,1) , 0.6) \cap M$ with radius and angle relative to $(1,1)$ as $(r_{(1,1)}, \varphi_{(1,1)})$. Then define map into $H^2$ absolute coordinates as $(r_{(1,1)}, \varphi_{(1,1)}) \mapsto (r_{(1,1)}, 2(\varphi_{(1,1)} + \pi / 2))$. –  goobie Jan 29 '13 at 9:14
    
How can I award bounty to you? If I click I get this: i.stack.imgur.com/0pnU6.png Do I have to wait until bounty time is ending? I will try again later. –  goobie Jan 29 '13 at 9:19

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.